[cle]

> Practically every single VC seed round story I've heard from new/young founders is that the process is nothing short of a colonoscopy into not only their business, but also their professional network, and even their personal lives!

I’ve seen two groups of founders here. One knows how to say the right things, spin data the right way, have the right credentials, and know the right people, to avoid substantive due diligence. The others don’t, and end up getting a colonoscopy and then likely a “you’re too early” or “you’re too far along”.

> So the real question is, how many more proverbial rotten apples are in the basket of VC?

I don’t have a bird’s eye view, but my few data point me towards most VCs convincing themselves that they’re rigorous, when they ultimately rely on subjective criteria and so are quite vulnerable to con artist founders who know how to make them feel good.

[ethbr0]

This is why standardized processes and adherence to them is absolutely critical for risk management.

There is always going to be a situation where there's substantial political / personal pressure to skip checks, sometimes from the CEO themselves.

Good processes are built to hold the line even when literally everyone is urging everyone else to bypass them. Which is really hard.

[mrguyorama]

VCs with rigorous process get out-competed by the ones that jumped at garbage companies that racked up huge valuations and then cashed out. VC isn't about making good companies, it's about cashing out. There's no value in the business actually being good, only in it being hyped up.